Subject: Re: bug#78777: 30.1; insert-file-contents should not set buffer-file-name to nil

From: Eli Zaretskii <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2025 18:05:18 +0300

> From: Stefan Monnier <[email-masked]>
> Cc: [email-masked],  [email-masked],  [email-masked]
> Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2025 10:56:03 -0400
> 
> Ah, you're talking about something else: I'm talking about "when should
> we inhibit ask-supersession" whereas you're talking about "how".

Yes, because I see no reason to change the "when".  We had zero
problems with it since it was introduced long ago.

> > IMO, any of these alternatives is better than your proposal, because
> > it solves the problem completely, not partially, and because it
> > doesn't run any risks of regressions due to the VISIT case which until
> > now did not matter.
> 
> IOW, at least in my mind, the code as it stands is mysterious, whereas
> with the `!NILP (visit)` it makes perfect sense.  This is orthogonal to
> whether we want to inhibit ask-supersession by binding
> `buffer-file-name` or via some other (new) mechanism.

But then this bug report is not the right place to discuss your
suggestions, right?